competition, subsidy and requirement regulations -effects of state policies and their interactions...
TRANSCRIPT
Competition, Subsidy and Requirement
Regulations
-Effects of State Policies and their Interactions on Hospital Uncompensated Care Provision
LEI ZHANG
Andrew Young School of Policy StudiesGeorgia State University
June 10, 2008
-2 -ARM Presentation By Lei Zhang
Motivation
• Increasing demand for hospital uncompensated care
• Decreasing hospital ability to supply• State policies
– Community benefit requirement laws (requirement)
– Uncompensated care pools (subsidy) – Certificate-of-Need (competition)
• Focus: – Policy interactions– New IRS rulings
-3 -ARM Presentation By Lei Zhang
Research Questions
• Do regulatory interactions among states affect hospital uncompensated care provision?
-4 -ARM Presentation By Lei Zhang
Empirical Model and Estimation
• An instrumental variable approach: Hausman-Taylor– More efficient than fixed effects– Allows to estimate time invariant variables
• Random Effects GLS– Adjusts for cluster correlated errors
• Test for endogeneity: Hausman test
UCit = β0 + β1Hospitalit + β2Marketit + β3Regulationit+β4Year + β5State + εit
-5 -ARM Presentation By Lei Zhang
Data• Data Sources:
– American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey of Hospitals
– Area Resource File (ARF)– State Inpatient Database (SID) from Healthcare
Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)
• Sample: – 2,235 nonprofit and 295 for-profit observations– 2002-2004– 17 states
-6 -ARM Presentation By Lei Zhang
Study States and Regulatory Variations
Among the 17 study (Green) states: – 5 states have community benefit requirement laws– 8 states have uncompensated care pools– 12 states have CON laws
Texas
Montana
Utah
Idaho
California
Nevada
Arizona
Oregon
Iowa
Colorado
Wyoming
Kansas
New Mexico
Minnesota
Illinois Ohio
Nebraska
Missouri
Flor ida
Georgia
Oklahoma
Washington
South Dakota
North Dakota
Maine
Wisconsin
Alabama
Arkansas
New York
Virginia
Indiana
Michigan
Louisiana
Kentucky
Mississippi
Tennessee
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
South Carolina
West Virginia
Vermont
Maryland
New Jersey
New Hampshire
MassachusettsConnecticut
Puerto R ico
-7 -ARM Presentation By Lei Zhang
Key Variables
• Dependent Variable– Number of admissions for self-pay/charity patients– Percent of admissions for self-pay/charity patients
• Regulatory Variables– CON, Pool, Community Benefit Requirement, and their
interactions
• Control Variables– Hospital: teaching status, public hospitals, hospital size,
network/system members, ER, technology intensity – Market: Hirschman-Herfindahl Index (HHI), HMO
market penetration, the percentage of population aged 65+, per capita income, insurance coverage, and rural/urban
-8 -ARM Presentation By Lei Zhang
Comparing Results With and Without Policy Interactions
Table I: Nonprofit Hospital Uncompensated Care Provision
-9 -ARM Presentation By Lei Zhang
Comparing Results With and Without Policy Interactions
(cont.)
Table II: For-profit Hospital Uncompensated Care Provision
-10 -ARM Presentation By Lei Zhang
Results
• Uncompensated care pools and CON laws are compliments
• Nonprofit and for-profit hospitals respond to community benefit requirement laws differently– For-profit hospitals respond to requirement
regulations by increasing their uncompensated care provision
– Nonprofit hospitals may already be providing higher levels of uncompensated care than what the requirement regulations require
-11 -ARM Presentation By Lei Zhang
Summary
• The combined effects of a regulation bundle are sometimes different from those of a single regulation
• Community benefit requirement laws may limit the need for hospitals to seek support from the uncompensated care pools or cross-subsidization of services
-12 -ARM Presentation By Lei Zhang
Policy Implications
• Regulation bundle such as providing public subsidies and CON may improve access to care for the uninsured
• Requirement regulations may be an effective policy option to improve health of the uninsured
-13 -ARM Presentation By Lei Zhang
Acknowledgement
• The author thanks the following institutions for providing data for the analysis: – Georgia Health Policy Center, Andrew Young School of
Policy Studies, Georgia State University– Department of Health Administration, Robinson School
of Business, Georgia State University– William Miller
• And the following individuals for their comments:– Paul Farnham, Patricia Ketsche, William Custer,
Shiferaw Gurmu, Karen Minyard, Doug Noonan– Richard Lindrooth, Myles Maxfield